Originally Posted by JDM onlyy
X2 it seems to be a growing trend with religious types.
I'll tell you what. I challenge either one of you to list out EXACT EXAMPLES of how the Bible has "changed". You both seem to be so eager to use that as your punch line, so I'm going to call you out on it. Put up or shut up time ladies. You say the Bible is, according to you, changing so much that we must be dumb to believe it. I just proved to you how brilliant you are for putting all your life eggs in the text book basket, so now prove to me why I should not put all my faith on the Bible.
-Cue the Jeopardy theme song.-
Time's ticking ladies. Let's see what you got. You wanted a debate? Let's see if you really want one.
I really just glanced over and ignored whatever else you wrote as being completely irrelevant...But I will address this since you are so eager.
Many fundamentalist Christians believe the Bible is inerrant or infallible, but for those that do not there is a branch of philology or bibliography called "Textual Criticism" or "Higher Criticism".
Textual criticism is concerned with the identification and removal of errors from texts and manuscripts. Ancient manuscripts often have errors or alterations made by scribes, who copied the manuscripts by hand. The textual critic seeks to determine the original text of a document or a collection of documents, which the critic believes to come as close as possible to a lost original.
From the scholarly point of view, the differences in various Biblical manuscripts are well-documented. A few well-known variants include:
John 7:53-John 8:1-11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best manuscripts and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. Critical text scholar Bruce Metzger summarizes: "The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming."
Mark 16:9-20 does not exist in the earliest and best manuscripts. Virtually all scholars believe it was a later addition, added by scribes who felt the original ending was unsatisfactory.
1 John 5:7-8 — "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" — the infamous Comma Johanneum, is accepted as a later insertion by virtually every scholar. It is most interesting that it is the only explicit reference to the Trinity in the New Testament, yet it is not part of the original epistle, but dates from probably the fourth century.
Matt. 5:22 The phrase "without a cause" appears in some early manuscripts and some writings of early church fathers, but this phrase does not appear in the earliest manuscript (Papyrus 67 dated AD 125-150) nor in the earliest church father writing (Justin dated about 165 AD) of Matthew 5:22. Virtually all scholars believe that this phrase was added by the third century. (It is notable that this phrase is in the King James Bible but it is not in the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith Translation of Matthew 5:22.)
John 1:18 is notoriously difficult because various manuscripts read either monogenes theos ("the only God") or ho monogenes huios("the only son").
Heb. 1:3 reads "reveals (phaneron) all things" in the Codex Vaticanus, while most manuscripts read "sustains (pheron) all things". This is particularly interesting because there's a scribe's marginal note in the CV that reads "Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don't change it!", indicating contention over an intentional change in the passage.
I am just stating a few examples, but a simple google search will yield alot more on this subject...Personally I don't give a shit if god himself wrote the Bible, or if you think the work is infallible or not. It is only worth as much as the paper it is printed on, and the blood that has been spilled in his name.
Reply With Quote